alameda county probation department a look into probation · 1 alameda county probation department...

1

Alameda County Probation Department

A Look into Probation Monthly Report

September 2012

Acting Chief LaDonna M. Harris Chief Probation Officer

400 Broadway Oakland, California 94607

510-268-7233

2

Executive Summary This statistical report provides a brief summary of trends for adults and juveniles who have received services from the Alameda County Probation Department (ACPD) in September 2012. The purpose of this report is to promote greater understanding of the breadth and depth of services provided by the department and a snapshot of the populations we serve. This report is produced bi-monthly. The next report will be for November 2012 and be available at the end of December 2012. This report was developed by the Alameda County Probation Department’s Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT). We welcome your feedback. For questions or comments, please feel free to contact Carissa Pappas, Management Analyst at: [email protected]

Table of Contents Adult Services Figure Page Number Adult Probation Trends 1 3

Adult Offense Types 2 3

Gender and Race of Adult Clients 3 4

Adults on Probation by Location 4 4

Primary Service Needs 5 5

Re-Aligned Population PRCS Cases Received 6 6

PRCS Demographic Trends 7 6

PRCS Violation Types 8 7

Offense Types on Violations Filed for New Arrests of PRCS Clients 9 7

Juvenile Field Services Juvenile Probation Trends 10 8

Offense Types for Youth on Probation 11 8

Juveniles on Probation by Location 12 9

Juvenile Services-Referrals Referral Offense Types Yearly Comparison 13 10

Referral Offense Types 14 10

Source for Referrals 15 11

Juvenile Referral Decisions by Month 16 11

Gender and Race of Youth Referred to Probation Department 17 12

City of Residence for Youth Referred to Probation Department 18 12

Referrals by Race and Sex 19 13

Juvenile Facilities and Detention Alternatives Juvenile Hall/Secure Detention Trends 20 14

Juvenile Hall Admit Trends CY 2011 and 2012 21 14

Juvenile Hall Release Trends CY 2011 and 2012 22 15

Juvenile Hall Detaining Offense Trends 23 15

Juvenile Hall Detaining Offenses by Race and Sex 24 16

GPS Trends 25 17

GPS Admit Trends CY 2011 and 2012 26 17

GPS Release Trends CY 2011 and 2012 27 18

Home Supervision Trends 28 19

Home Supervision Admit Trends CY 2011 and 2012 29 19

Home Supervision Release Trends CY 2011 and 2012 30 20

Camp Sweeney Trends 31 21

Offense Types for Youth Ordered to Camp Sweeney 32 21

mailto:[email protected]

3

Adult Services- Probation September 2012

Figure 1

Demographics Start of

September

Cases Opened

in September

Cases Closed

in September

End of

September

Avg.

Years on Probation

# % # % # % # % #

Female 2,348 17% 29 15% 4 8% 2,373 17% 3 Years

Male 11,559 83% 159 85% 48 92% 11,670 83% 4 Years

Total 13,907 100% 188 100% 52 100% 14,043 100% 4 Years

Black 7,012 50% 96 51% 24 46% 7,084 50% 4 Years

Latino 2,875 21% 41 22% 11 21% 2,905 21% 4 Years

White 2,859 21% 39 21% 13 25% 2,885 21% 3 Years

Asian 677 5% 7 4% 3 6% 681 5% 7.5 Years

Other 484 4% 5 3% 1 2% 488 4% <1 Year

Total 13,907 100% 188 100% 52 100% 14,043 100% 4 Years

Figure 1 displays an aggregate summary of the cases that were opened during September 2012 for adult clients. The table also displays the number of clients who are on probation at the start of the month and allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data by gender and race. On September 1st, 2012 there were 13,907 adults on probation. Throughout the month of September, there were 188 new cases opened and 52 adults released from probation. On September 30, 2012 there were 14,043 adults on probation. The average length of time on probation for adults was 4 years.

Figure 2

Offense Types for Adults on Probation September 2012

Property36%

Drug & Alcohol32%

Other Felony 13%

Persons13%

Traffic1%

Weapons 5%

Other Misdemeanors 1%

n = 14,095

Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)

Figure 2 displays the offense type breakdown for the total adult client population in September 2012. Over 95% of adult clients supervised are convicted felons. The majority of clients are placed on probation for a property (36%) or drug (32%) offense, while only 13% of clients were placed on probation for offenses against persons and “Other Felony” offenses.

4

Figure 3

Gender and Race of Adult Probation Clients September 2012

Gender of Clients on Probation

Male 83%

Female17%

n = 14,095

Race of Clients on Probation

African-American

50%Latino 21%

White 21%

Asian 5%

Other 4%

n = 14,095


Figure 3 displays an aggregate summary of demographic information for adult probation clients. Males account for 83% of the population, while females represent 17%. African-Americans make up half of the population, White clients account for 21% as do the Latino population. The remaining clients are Asian (4%) and “Other Races” (4%).

Figure 4

Adult Probation Clients by LocationSeptember 2012

Alameda 2%Berkeley 4%

Castro Valley 2%

Fremont 5%

Hayward 13%

Livermore 3%

Newark 2%

Oakland41%

Richmond 2%

San Francisco 2%

San Jose 1%

San Leandro 6%

San Lorenzo 1%

Union City 3%

Vallejo 1%

Other 12%

n = 14,095


Figure 4 displays the locations where adults on probation reside. The majority of adult clients reside in Oakland (41%) and Hayward (13%). The “Other” category includes 12% of clients who reside in small communities that make up less than one percent each of the total for that group. Please note: Figure 3 displays some cities which are not in Alameda County. Per various court orders and mandates, Alameda County Probation Department maintains jurisdiction over some probationers that reside out-of-County.

5

Figure 5

Primary Service Needs Among Adult Probation Clients September 2012

Banked Population

Drug/Alcohol 52%

Employment 20%

Mental Health

6%

Residential Treatment

3%

Educational 7%

Anger Management

2%

Literacy <1%

None Identified

9%

Other 1%

n = 8,608

Formal Supervision

Drug/Alcohol

37%

Employment17%

Mental Health

8%

Residential Treatment

3%

Educational 7%

Anger Management

8%

Literacy<1%

None Identified

18%

Other 1%

n = 5,454


During the investigation stage of the adult probation process, all adult probationers receive a brief screening for service needs. Figure 5 displays primary service needs for the Banked and Formal Supervision populations. Drug and alcohol service needs make up over half of the Banked populations’ primary needs and 37% for clients under formal supervision. Employment needs also rate high for each population, 20% and 17% respectively.

6

Re-Aligned Population September 2012

Figure 6

PRCS Cases Received from CDCR per MonthOctober 2011-September 2012

7286

143

93

63 59 5468

50

3243

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Oct

ober

20

11

Nov

embe

r 20

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Janu

ary

2012

Febr

uary

20

12

Mar

ch

2012

Apri

l 201

2

May

201

2

June

201

2

July

201

2

Augu

st

2012

Sept

embe

r 20

12

n = 799 cases received ytd(625 currently active)

Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)/Adult Services

Between October 2011 and September 2012, 799 Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) clients were released from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to Alameda County Probation Department for supervision services after the passage of AB109. Figure 6 shows the number of cases received per month. In September 2012, there were 625 active cases and the remaining 174 cases were either closed or transferred to another jurisdiction.

Figure 7

Gender and Race of Active PRCS ClientsOctober 2011 – September 2012

Gender of PRCS Population

Male 92%

Female 8%

n = 625

Race of PRCS Population

African-American

61%

Latino 19%

White 15%

Asian2% Other

4%

n = 625


The majority of PRCS clients released from CDCR to date are African-American males and overall, people of color account for 86% of all PRCS clients. Females make up less than 10% of the total population, while males make up over 90%.

7

Figure 8

Percent of Violation Types for PRCS Clients October 2011 – September 2012

AWOL 28%

New Arrests 38%

No Shows 32%

New Arrest/No Show 3%

n = 250


As Figure 8 shows, there have been 250 violations filed on PRCS clients in Alameda County since October 2011. Out of all violations filed, the majority (38%) have been for new arrests. 32% of violations have been filed for no show status which means the client never reported to their first meeting with ACPD upon release from CDCR custody. Almost 30% of violations were filed for AWOL which means the client stopped reporting to the ACPD sometime after their first meeting. The remaining 3% of clients who had violations filed were for a combination of a new arrest and a no show.

Figure 9

Percent of Offense Types for New Arrest Violations Filed on the PRCS Population October 2011 – September 2012

Property24%

Drug/Alcohol26%Person

19%

Weapons 6%

Other 6%

Public18%

n = 99


There have been 99 violations filed on PRCS clients for new arrests since October 2011. Figure 9 shows the percent of offense types represented by the new arrests. Most new arrest violations were for drug/alcohol arrests (26%), property offenses (24%), and offenses against persons (19%). Offenses against the public made up 18% of new arrest violations, while weapons offenses accounted for 6%. Arrests in the “Other” category made up the remaining 6% of offense types. The majority of “Other” arrests were for misdemeanor offenses.

8

Juvenile Field Services- Probation September 2012

Figure 10


September

Cases Opened

in September

Cases Closed

in September

End of

September

Avg. Years on

Probation

# % # % # % # % #

Female 349 18% 11 19% 12 17% 348 18% 1.1 Years

Male 1,600 82% 47 81% 59 83% 1,588 82% 1.4 Years

Total 1,949 100% 58 100% 71 100% 1,936 100% 1.3 Years

Black 1,095 56% 31 53% 37 52% 1,089 56% 1.4 Years

Latino 521 27% 16 28% 20 28% 517 27% 1.4 Years

White 184 9% 6 10% 10 14% 180 9% 9 Months

Asian 92 5% 2 3% 3 4% 91 5% 2.2 Years

Other 57 3% 3 5% 1 1% 59 3% 8 Months

Total 1,949 100% 58 100% 71 100% 1,936 100% 1.3 Years

Figure 10 displays an aggregate summary of the cases that were opened in September 2012 for juvenile probationers. The table also displays the number of youth who were on juvenile probation at the start of September 2012, as well as the average length of stay for those whose cases have closed. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 1,949 youth on juvenile probation. Throughout the month of September, there were 58 youth newly placed on probation and 71 youth whose cases were closed from probation. The average length of stay for youth on juvenile probation was 1.3 years. *Average length of stay is only calculated for those cases that closed during the month.

Figure 11

Offense Types for Youth on Probation September 2012

Property31%

Other5%

Persons24%

Drugs5%

Status2%

Public5%

Weapons 8%

Fail to Obey Court Order

19%

n = 2,007


Figure 11 displays the offense type breakdown for the total juvenile client population in September 2012. The majority of clients were placed on probation for a property (31%) or person offenses (24%), while 19% of clients were placed on probation for failing to obey a court order. The remaining juveniles were placed on probation for weapons offenses (8%), drug offenses and offenses against the public (5%) and status offenses (2%).

9

Figure 12

Juvenile Probation Clients by LocationSeptember 2012

Alameda 3%

Berkeley 4%

Castro Valley 2%Dublin 1%

Fremont 6%

Hayward14%

Livermore4%

Newark 3%

Oakland45%

Pleasanton 1%

San Leandro 7%

San Lorenzo 2%

Union City 3%

Other 5%

n = 2,007


Figure 12 displays the locations where juveniles on probation in Alameda County live. The majority of youth reside in Oakland (45%) and Hayward (14%). The remaining 36% of youth reside in a variety of communities throughout Alameda County. The “Other” category includes 5% of clients who reside in small communities that make up less than one percent each of the total for that group.

10

Juvenile Services- Referrals September 2012

Figure 13

Juvenile Referrals by Month 2011 and 2012

443

401

552

452

587

488

430

389

455

344 351328

409429

347 341319

202

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

2011 2012

Overall, the number of referrals received year to date has declined 19% when compared to the same period in 2011 (from 3,796 to 3,070)

In 2012, the number of youth referred to the Probation Department has remained fairly stable over the year with exception of April and May when the number of referrals rose to 409 and 429 respectively.

In addition, the number of referrals dropped substantially in September to 202, a decrease of 37% between August and September 2012.


Figure 14

Referral Offense Types July 2012

Other4%

Property 15%

Persons 25%

Public 6%

Drug & Alcohol 4%

Status2%

VOP8%

Warrant21%

Warrant & VOP10%

Weapons4% n = 202


* The “Other” category include warrants and probation violations which make up the majority of referral types .

In September 2012, offenses against persons referrals composed the largest portion (25%) of juvenile referrals to ACPD. Referrals for warrants were the next largest category (21%), followed by property offenses (15%), and both a warrant and violation of probation (10%). Straight violations of probation accounted for 8% of all referrals, drug and alcohol and weapons offenses represented 4%, while the remaining referrals were made up of status offenses (2%) and “Other” offenses (4%). (Please refer to Figure 18 for a more detailed description of each offense type.)

11

Figure 15

Source for Referrals September 2012

Alameda PD 5%

Albany PD 1%Berkeley PD 4%

Probation Officers19%

Dublin PD 2%

Fremont PD 6%

Hayward PD 12%

Juvenile Court Judges 6%

Livermore PD 1%Newark PD

4%

Oakland PD14%

BART PD 2%

San Leandro PD 5%

School Attorney 2%

Self-report 2%

Sheriff 8%

Union City PD5%

Other 2%

n = 202


Police and Sheriffs were responsible for approximately 76% of all referrals in September 2012. Deputy Probation Officers were responsible for 18% of referrals. The “Other” category includes 2% of small community police departments that make up less than one percent each of the total for that group.

Figure 16

Juvenile Referral Decisions by Month 2012

45% 42% 36%45% 42% 39%

51% 48%58%

55% 58% 64%55% 58% 61%

48% 52%42%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

ferr

al D

eci

sio

ns

Book-Ins NTAs/Other

n = 351 n = 328 n = 409 n = 429 n = 347 n = 341 n = 319 n = 202n = 344


In 2012, the number of youth referred to ACPD has remained fairly stable over the year with the exception of April and May when the number of referrals rose to 409 and 429 respectively. The number of referrals dropped substantially (37%) in September to 202, from August when 319 referrals were received. In addition, the percent of youth who were booked into Juvenile Hall after being referred to Probation was lower each month with the exception of July and September when overall referrals were lower. Youth who are not booked into Juvenile Hall are given a Notice to Appear (NTA) in Court and released.

12

Figure 17

Gender and Race of Youth Referred to Probation September 2012

Gender of Youth Referred to Probation

Male 83%

Female 17%

n = 202

Race of Youth Referred to Probation

African American

55%

Latino 26%

White 10%Asian

7%

Other 2%

n = 202


Figure 16 displays an aggregate summary of demographic information for youth referred to probation. Males account for 83% of the population, while females represent 17%. African-Americans make up over half of the population, Latino clients account for 26%, while White clients make up 10% of the population. The remaining clients are Asian (7%) and “Other Races” (2%).

Figure 18

City of Residence for Youth Referred to Probation September 2012

Alameda 5%

Berkeley 3%Castro Valley 2%

Dublin 2%

Fremont 6%

Hayward18%

Livermore 3%

Newark 4%

Oakland36%

Richmond2%

San Leandro8%

San Lorenzo2%

Union City6% Other 3%

n = 202


Figure 17 displays the locations where juveniles referred to probation in Alameda County live. The majority of youth reside in Oakland (36%) and Hayward (18%). The remaining 46% of youth reside in a variety of communities throughout Alameda County. The “Other” category includes 3% of clients who reside in small communities that make up less than one percent each of the total for that group.

13

Figure 19

Juvenile Referrals by Race and Sex September 2012 Persons Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Robbery 25 23 2 1 16 4 1 3

Misdemeanor Assault 9 3 6 2 3 4 0 0

Felony Assault or Battery 8 6 2 2 3 2 1 0

Sex Offenses 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

Rape 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

Carjacking 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0

Threaten 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0

Murder 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total Persons Referrals 51 41 10 6 25 13 4 3

% of Total Persons Referrals 100% 80% 20% 12% 49% 25% 8% 6%

Property Offenses

Burglary 17 17 0 1 9 5 2 0

Petty Theft 4 3 1 0 2 1 0 1

Receiving Stolen Property 4 4 0 1 2 1 0 0

Auto Theft 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0

Grand Theft 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Vandalism 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Theft 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Trespassing 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total Property Referrals 31 28 3 2 19 7 2 1

% of Total Property Referrals 100% 90% 10% 6% 61% 23% 6% 3%

Offenses Against the Public All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Obstruction of Justice 9 7 2 1 5 3 0 0

Weapons Offenses 7 6 1 0 5 2 0 0

Prostitution 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Disorderly Conduct 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Gang Offenses 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Total Public Referrals 19 14 5 1 12 5 1 0

% of Total Public Referrals 100% 74% 26% 5% 63% 26% 5% 0%

Drug & Alcohol Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Drug Distribution 6 4 2 0 1 3 2 0

Drug Possession 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Driving Under the Influence 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Total Drug & Alcohol Referrals 9 6 3 2 2 3 2 0

% of Total Drug & Alcohol 100% 67% 33% 22% 22% 33% 22% 0%

Status Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Truancy 4 2 2 0 1 3 0 0

Total Status Referrals 4 2 2 0 1 3 0 0

% of Total Status Referrals 100% 50% 50% 0% 25% 75% 0% 0%

“Other” Types of Referrals All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Warrant & VOP Filed 21 18 3 2 12 6 1 0

Failure to Appear 19 17 2 0 15 2 2 0

Violation of Probation 17 13 4 5 6 5 1 0

Warrants-Placement Runaway 13 12 1 1 9 3 0 0

Warrants 6 5 1 0 3 2 1 0

Warrants-GPS Failure 4 4 0 0 2 2 0 0

Transfer to Another City 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 0

Other Offenses 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0

Courtesy Hold 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Warrants-Camp Sweeney 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total “Other” Referrals 88 76 12 9 53 21 5 0

% of Total “Other” Referrals 100% 86% 14% 10% 60% 24% 6% 0%

Total Referrals 202 167 35 20 112 52 14 4

% of Total Referrals 100% 83% 17% 10% 55% 26% 7% 2%

14

Juvenile Facilities and Alternatives to Detention September 2012

Juvenile Hall Figure 20


September Book-Ins for September

Releases in September

End of September

Avg. Length of

Stay

# % # % # % # % #

Female 26 13% 40 20% 43 20% 23 12% 15 Days

Male 173 87% 164 80% 169 80% 168 88% 26 Days

Total 199 100% 204 100% 212 100% 191 100% 24 Days

Black 131 66% 117 57% 124 58% 124 65% 26 Days

Latino 44 22% 50 25% 52 25% 42 22% 23 Days

White 16 8% 18 9% 20 9% 14 7% 18 Days

Asian 6 3% 12 6% 12 6% 6 3% 15 Days

Other 2 1% 7 3% 4 2% 5 3% 14 Days

Total 199 100% 204 100% 212 100% 191 100% 24 Days

Figure 19 displays an aggregate summary of youth who were admitted/released to secure detention in September 2012. The table also displays the number of youth who were detained at the start of the month, as well as the average length of stay. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 199 youth at Juvenile Hall. Throughout the month of September, there were 204 new admissions and 212 releases from the facility. On September 30, 2012 there were 191 youth at Juvenile Hall. The average length of stay for youth in the Hall was 24 days.

Figure 21

Book-InsNumber of Youth Admitted to Juvenile Hall

by Month Comparison of 2011 and 2012

270

228

314

277308 306

253 250

298

257 250 251265

251 250

335313

287

258 259

204

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Num

ber o

f Yo

uth

Admits 2011 Admits 2012


Figure 20 displays a summary of the number of youth who were admitted per month at Juvenile Hall during calendar year 2011 and 2012.

15

Figure 22

RELEASESNumber of Youth Released from Juvenile Hall


247230

306

278

306315

246

277

252

284

218

259

281

258 257

291

332

276 275 276

212

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Nu

mb

er o

f Yo

uth

Releases 2011 Releases 2012


Figure 21 displays a summary of the number of youth who were released per month from Juvenile Hall during calendar year 2011 and 2012.

Figure 23

Detaining Offense Types for Youth at Juvenile HallSeptember 2012

Property19%

Persons33%

Drug 4%

Other 7%

Public2%

Violation of Probation

10%

Warrants & Violation of Probation

16%

Warrants5%

Weapons5%

n = 403


The majority of juveniles held in the Alameda County Juvenile Hall were detained for offenses against persons (33%). Property offenses made up 19% of detaining offense types, followed by a combination of warrants and violations of probation (16%), while 10% of youth were detained for violations of probation only. The remaining youth were detained for weapons offenses (5%), warrants (5%), drug/alcohol offenses (4%), offenses against the public (2%), and “Other” offenses (7%). (Please refer to Figure 23 for a more detailed description of each offense type.)

16

Figure 24

Most Serious Detaining Offense for all Youth at Juvenile Hall by Race and Sex September 2012

Persons Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Robbery 61 55 6 3 44 11 1 2

Felony Assault or Battery 41 24 17 6 17 16 2 0

Murder 8 8 0 0 6 2 0 0

Sex Offenses 5 5 0 0 1 1 1 2

Carjacking 5 5 0 0 2 0 3 0

Threaten 4 4 0 1 2 1 0 0

Rape 4 4 0 0 3 1 0 0

Kidnapping 3 3 0 0 2 1 0 0

Hit & Run Death 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total Persons Referrals 132 109 23 10 78 33 7 4

% of Total Persons Referrals 100% 83% 17% 8% 59% 25% 5% 3%

Property Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Burglary 38 35 3 3 26 7 2 0

Auto Theft 21 18 3 1 13 7 0 0

Receiving Stolen Property 5 5 0 2 2 1 0 0

Grand Theft 4 2 2 0 3 0 1 0

Vandalism 4 3 1 1 3 0 0 0

Petty Theft 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Theft 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Possession of Burglary Tools 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total Property Referrals 75 66 9 7 49 16 3 0

% of Total Property Referrals 100% 88% 12% 9% 65% 21% 4% 0%

Offenses Against the Public All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Weapons Offenses 19 18 1 1 13 3 2 0

Obstruction of Justice 5 4 1 0 3 2 0 0

Prostitution 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0

Gang Offenses 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Disorderly Conduct 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Total Public Referrals 29 23 6 1 20 6 2 0

% of Total Public Referrals 100% 79% 21% 3% 69% 21% 7% 0%

Drug & Alcohol Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Drug Distribution 11 10 1 1 4 3 1 2

Drug Possession 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0

Driving while Intoxicated 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total Drug & Alcohol Referrals 15 14 1 3 5 3 1 3

% of Total Drug & Alcohol 100% 93% 7% 20% 33% 20% 7% 20%

“Other” Types of Referrals All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other

Warrant & VOP Filed 63 55 8 6 33 21 3 0

Violation of Probation 41 33 8 6 25 7 1 2

Transfer to Another City 25 21 4 0 20 4 1 0

Warrants-GPS Failure 5 1 4 0 5 0 0 0

Warrants- Home Supervision Failure 4 3 1 0 3 1 0 0

Warrants-Camp Sweeney 4 4 0 0 3 1 0 0

Warrants-Placement Runaway 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0

Warrants-Failure to Appear 3 1 2 0 3 0 0 0

Courtesy Hold 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Accessory 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Escape 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Violation of a Protective Order 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total “Other” Referrals 152 125 27 13 96 36 5 2

% of Total “Other” Referrals 100% 82% 18% 9% 63% 24% 3% 1%

Total Referrals 403 337 66 34 248 94 18 9

% of Total Referrals 100% 84% 16% 8% 62% 23% 4% 2%

17

Juvenile Detention Alternatives September 2012 GPS Monitoring

Figure 25


September

Admits in

September

Releases in

September

End of

September

Avg. Length of

Stay

# % # % # % # % #

Female 31 17% 29 30% 18 20% 42 22% 36 Days

Male 154 83% 67 70% 70 80% 151 78% 50 Days

Total 185 100% 96 100% 88 100% 193 100% 47 Days

Black 108 58% 51 53% 59 67% 100 52% 50 Days

Latino 51 28% 27 28% 19 22% 59 31% 40 Days

White 15 8% 9 9% 5 6% 19 10% 45 Days

Asian 7 4% 5 5% 3 3% 11 6% 42 Days

Other 4 2% 4 4% 2 2% 4 2% 41 Days

Total 185 100% 96 100% 88 100% 193 100% 47 Days

Figure 24 displays an aggregate summary of youth who were admitted/released in the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) detention alternative program in September 2012. The table also displays the number of youth who were in GPS at the start of the month, as well as the average length of stay for those who have closed out of the program. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 185 youth in the GPS program. Throughout the month of September, there were 96 youth newly placed in the program and 88 youth released from the program. The average length of stay for youth in the program was 47 days.

Figure 26

ADMISSIONSNumber of Youth Admitted to GPS Services


8489

130

100 104

136

101106 106

131

111

122130

125134

144

172

136

122113

96

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Num

ber o

f Yo

uth



Figure 25 displays a summary of the number of youth who were admitted per month to the GPS program during calendar year 2011 and 2012.

18

Figure 27

RELEASESNumber of Youth Released from GPS Services


10799

110 112 110102

114

122

109117

105 108

119123

137

123

160 158

113 113

88

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Num

ber

of

You

th



Figure 26 displays a summary of the number of youth who were released per month from the GPS program during calendar year 2011 and 2012.

19

Home Supervision Program Figure 28


September Admits in

September Releases in September

End of September

Avg. Length of

Stay

# % # % # % # % #

Female 14 26% 5 46% 10 53% 9 20% 49 Days

Male 40 74% 6 55% 9 47% 37 80% 41 Days

Total 54 100% 11 100% 19 100% 46 100% 45 Days

Black 34 63% 7 64% 11 58% 30 65% 43 Days

Latino 7 13% 2 18% 2 11% 7 15% 50 Days

White 10 19% 2 18% 5 26% 7 15% 42 Days

Asian 2 4% 0 --- 1 5% 1 2% 77 Days

Other 1 2% 0 --- 0 --- 1 2% ---

Total 5 100% 11 100% 19 100% 46 100% 45 Days

Figure 27 displays an aggregate summary of youth who were admitted/released in the Home Supervision (HS) detention alternative program in 2012. The table also displays the number of youth who were in HS at the start of September 2012, as well as the average length of stay. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 54 youth in the Home Supervision program. Throughout the month of September, there were 11 youth newly placed in the program and 19 youth released from the program. The average length of stay for youth in the program was 45 days.

Figure 29

ADMISSIONSNumber of Youth Admitted to Home Supervision Services by

Month Comparison of 2011 and 2012

18

2425

14

22

1718

19

17

23 2322

1817

13 14 13

23

2726

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Nu

mb

er o

f Yo

uth



Figure 28 displays a summary of the number of youth who were admitted per month to the HS program during calendar year 2011 and 2012.

20

Figure 30

RELEASESNumber of Youth Released from Home Supervision Services


23

15

18

24 24

21

17 17

23

2120

23

14

21

15

1312

26

16 16

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Nu

mb

er o

f Yo

uth



Figure 29 displays a summary of the number of youth who were released per month from the HS program during calendar year 2011 and 2012.

21

Camp Sweeney September 2012

Figure 31


September

Admits in

September

Releases in

September

End of

September

# % # % # % # %

Male 40 100% 11 100% 7 100% 44 100%

Total 40 100% 11 100% 7 100% 44 100%

Black 25 63% 6 55% 3 43% 28 64%

Latino 13 33% 2 18% 4 57% 11 25%

White 1 2% 1 9% 0 --- 2 5%

Asian 1 2% 2 18% 0 --- 3 7%

Other 0 --- 0 --- 0 --- 0 ---

Total 40 100% 11 100% 7 100% 44 100%

Figure 30 displays an aggregate summary of youth who were admitted/released to Camp Sweeney in

September 2012. The table also displays the number of youth who were placed at the start of the month. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 40 youth at Camp Sweeney. Throughout the month of September, there were 11 new admissions and 7 releases from the facility. On September 30, 2012 there were 44 youth at Camp Sweeney.

Figure 32

Offense Types for Juveniles at Camp SweeneySeptember 2012

Property33%

Persons26%

Drug 4%

Other 4%

Public6%

Weapons 10%

Failure to Obey Court Order

18%

n = 51


The majority of juveniles ordered to Camp Sweeney in September 2012, were adjudicated for property offenses (33%). Persons offenses made up the next largest category (26%), while 18% of youth were ordered to Camp Sweeney as a result of failing to obey a court order. The remaining youth were at Camp Sweeney for weapons offenses (10%), offenses against the public (6%), drug/alcohol offenses (4%) and “Other” offenses (4%).

alameda county probation department a look into probation · 1 alameda county probation department...

Documents